After the eighth school shooting in seven weeks – some gun control proposals

There's no point.

We're saying the same thing. No one wants to see these kinds of guns in the hands of people who shouldn't have them. The difference is, you're convinced more gun laws will solve the problem. Me? Not so much. I'm skeptical; you have all the answers. You want to restrict access to guns (which I support) to solve the issue (which I don't support). I'd rather address what is making our citizens into psychotic monsters who are capable of mass murder.

No one seems interested in that.

 

There's an assault weapons problem too though. I think that the gun lobby and its cohorts on the right have largely ignored that fact. There's a mentality at work here... one that supports the assault weapon. That mentality is something I'd like to be able to address. But it's an elusive little sucker. It's like whack-a-mole, I swear. Ok, you've already said a 9mm gets the job done, and that's something I do respect. A woman is entitled to be able to protect herself. So let me ask you this. Where do you think we should draw the line? Because I don't know what good an assault weapon is if all you need is a 9mm. I think now is an excellent time to show everyone in America that Congress is drawing the line. It's like that article I posted says, Bazookas aren't legal for a reason. Neither are automatics. I don't know that limited access is sufficient given the issues we're having with straw purchases (one guy buys it for the other guy) or going over state lines to get around gun control. Do you really think that limiting access is enough?

 

Are you seriously trying to put words in my mouth? I said absolutely NOTHING similar to the bullshit you just posted. This is exactly the sort of shit I'm so tired of. I've been here since 2002 and only in the last 5 years or so has this kind of polarized trolling become so common.

Seriously, what's your fucking problem here? How can you possibly draw such a line?

 

Please link a straw purchase to the problem of mass shootings.
They're more relevant to the issue Chicago and some other cities are facing.

 

Not to mention they're already against the law.

 

Gun debate: Here are the proposals that Congress is considering

Ninth issue down in bold Straw Purchases.

Ask your rep?

 

Ask them what? It's illegal to purchase a firearm for someone who is not allowed to. Making it another type of offense does what additionally?

 

You didn't click the link to the article, did you? Well, ask them to please connect the dots between mass shootings and straw purchases. I think that is one way for someone who otherwise would have very limited access to obtain a gun.

 

I agree with some of what you say, especially the analogy to the War on Drugs. But sometimes it's impossible to cure the root causes, and the best we can do is to treat symptoms. The root cause of the problem is sin or human depravity, but that's been around since Adam and Eve and making further inroads against it is tough going. Looking at the problem as a mental health issue is unproductive, because our knowledge about how to treat mental health problems is limited, the resources our society is willing to devote to them are even more limited, and our ability to take proactive measures is limited by our devotion to due process and civil liberties. Background checks can help, though not infallible. I think they need to be broadened to include the signs of disturbance shown by people like Nickolas Cruz and Dylan Roof, and more importantly, need to be stringently enforced. And the gun show loophole needs to be closed. No, having these measures in place doesn't guarantee people won't slip through the cracks, but it can help. You may not agree, but I think we have a cultural and political problem on our hands that is different from most First World countries. The NRA's propaganda feeds into the "them and us" mentality that makes it difficult to work toward reasonable solutions. Guns have become a cult, well-illustrated by some of the lyrical remarks about them by Machinist and others in this thread. The psychological underpinnings are non-rational, and not easily addressed in Forum discussions, which tend to focus on the good reasons instead of the real reasons for a behavior. I think self defense is a legitimate reason to own guns, and as a practical matter efforts to confiscate guns are likely to be met with fierce resistance. Notions about needing guns to stand up to our own government are disturbing, and tend to reinforce an anti-government mentality that exacerbates the situation. It is conceivable that we might get into a Mad Max/ Road Warriors post-apocalyptic situation in which civil order might break down and we might need to fight off marauders. But the militia movement and Survivalism seem to me to be quasi-paranoid in this regard, and threaten the bonds of social trust that make democracy effective. It really is a complex problem, but we've talked about gun control measures that seem realistic and reasonable if the goal is to reduce more school shootings--a good place to start.

 

Remember when kids use to play with cap guns? Irm remembers. I found two berreta style in my kitchen draws earlier looking for car keys. I also had a rifle when I was a kid but it shot paper caps and it sucked. I had a bow and arrow too.

 

Whatever your thoughts on gun control, no hip person should support the NRA. Even if you do, this is hilarious!

 

It's always funny watching people who don't know jack shit about guns think they have the expertise and moral high ground to write the rules of guns.


Most of these clowns don't even know that Glock and Beretta are gun brands, not a type of gun. Nor can they tell the difference between a hunting rifle and an assault rifle.

Bet if I told them my pistol is fully semiautomatic, they'd believe me.

 

When I was a kid I also played with cap gun, and I also had a cigarette lighter in the shape of a Colt .22 pocket pistol

 

Not

Well that is just evasion (more evasion) for someone that claims he wants to answer questions you do a good job of not doing so

OK I suppose you would prefer to see such killings as the 'execution' of an enemy?

I mean you admit to been committed to killing police officers if they act in a way you don’t like so ok you want to use one word and me another but either way the law enforcement officers (and other ‘enemies’) you killed would still be dead.

So again can you please answer the question - when would you begin killing police officers?

Yes you have said you hope not to have to – which is just a declaration of intent – you will but you just hope you don’t have to – so - - when would you begin killing police officers?

Yes you have given examples of others that have ‘executed’ law enforcement people (including the bomber Tim McVeigh) but again that just seems to indicate intent implying you would do the same – so - when would you begin killing police officers?

 

I’ve been through this argument hundreds of time here is something I post on the forum I believe about ten years ago -

I live in London it has a population of around 7.5 million and it only had 175 homicides between Apr-2005 to Apr-2006. In fact in 2009 there were only 651 murders in the whole of England and Wales with a population of around 55 million.

But let us take an American city – Philadelphia* – it I believe has a population of around 6.1 million yet it had 406 homicides in that same year. So two Philadelphia’s with only 12.2 million people would create 812 murders, more than what is produced by 55 million Brits.

But if you take out gun related homicides from the US crime figures they are not that much different from those of many European countries that have gun restrictions (although it is incredible difficult to compare any crime statistics other than homicide).

So the question is are Americans more murderous or is it just that Americans have easier access to much more lethal weapons?

*I was comparing a couple of urban areas of roughly the same size and population density
Philadelphia - population density of 11,457 people per square mile
London - population density of 11,760 people per square mile

But that’s what is so irrational about the gun lobby argument guns don’t seem to be the best way of tackling crime, in fact ease of access only seems to bring about a much higher violent death rates.

And yes the gun lobby will come back with ‘oh but guns have stopped so many crimes’ the problem with that is that it is another irrational argument.

Thing is that that take out gun crime and the US’s other crime rates are not that different to countries with much less easy access to guns. So either way reliance on guns as a method of reducing crime clearly isn’t working.

If huge numbers of crimes are been stopped with guns it means the US has a very much larger incidence of general crime than countries where guns are not available – in other words guns as a means of reducing crime is not working it just results in much larger murder rates when looked at in relations to comparable counties that don’t have easy access to guns.

Again another irrational argument – it’s basically going ‘I don’t want to make my society a better place to live in’

Why would any sane person not want to live in a better society?

 

Same here. And kids still do play like this. The best guns were self made from wood and some isolation tube. They looked most like AK47s

 

That's interesting because one of the arguments about why there is a problem with violence in this country (not sure if that would apply to you too in your country) is because males are socialized into violence. We teach them to play with guns and soldiers and that sort of thing. Football is rather violent too.